MR. FLEISCHER: The President began his morning with a phone call
to President Iliescu of Romania. The two have a very good
relationship, a friendly relationship. They had a very warm
conversation and the President fondly recalled his visit to Bucharest.
They discussed diplomatic steps the United States is taking at the
United Nations regarding Iraq. And the President expressed
appreciation for Romania's strong friendship and support, and noted
that the United States continued to support Romania.

Following that, the President had an intelligence briefing,
followed by an FBI briefing, and then convened a meeting of the
National Security Council. The President did a drop-by to a visit that
the head of administration of the President of Russia had with the
National Security Advisor. This was a long-planned visit. The two
talked about deepening and broadening the relationship between the
United States and Russia.

Then the President met with the National Governors Association,
Republicans and Democrats alike, where he talked about the economy and
budget, health care, welfare, the faith-based initiative, as well as
education and homeland security. And the President, of course,
announced that later today a resolution would be offered up in New York
City at the United Nations concerning Iraq.

Later this afternoon, the President will meet with NCAA fall sports
champions. And that is the President's schedule for today.

One other item that I referred to you earlier this morning, and
that is the importance of the briefing later today about the
humanitarian relief effort for Iraq. The President views this as a
very important initiative aimed directly at the people of Iraq, who
have been oppressed by the government of Iraq. And so American
officials will be providing a briefing about the steps the United
States has planned to take, in the event of hostilities, to provide
humanitarian relief, food relief and medical supplies to the people of
Iraq. So I want to bring that to your attention.

And with that I'm happy to take your questions.

Q Ari, on that point, about this humanitarian relief. If the
administration is interested in going through the steps of what relief
will be offered, why isn't the President giving the American people
more information about what an American-led occupation of Iraq would
look like, would entail, the sort of sacrifice, the potential danger?
Don't we have, as a society, the right to have that conversation before
military action begins, if it begins?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there is no question that you will,
in the case the President decides that the use of force is necessary.
If the President makes the decision that the use of force is necessary,
you can anticipate a series of additional conversation with the
President about this matter. These are important questions that you
raise. The humanitarian issue is an important question, and they all
are important questions. And I anticipate that you will hear from the
President on this.

Q I just need to follow on one point about this resolution.
It's been very clear, I mean, the President initially was not very
enthusiastic about pursuing a second resolution. He said he'd welcome
it, but didn't feel he needs it. That hasn't changed, yet now the
United States is actually tabling this resolution. Why does the
President now believe this is more than welcome, but necessary?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President and our allies will be tabling
this resolution. And it's precisely for the very reasons that the
President gave when he went to New York on September 12th. The fact of
the matter is, there would be no inspectors and there would be no
United Nations role if the President did not go to New York and put in
process this plan that put the United Nations front and center in this
issue.

And so this is now the final moments to see, having put the United
Nations front and center, what the United Nations will do. So to
answer your question directly, this is the logical follow-up to what
the President began last September.

Q But it's not, because he said that he didn't need it, and
that it would be welcome. But he clearly wasn't that enthusiastic
about it, and now he appears to have changed his view, to the point
where he and the UK are actually putting forward the resolution.
What's changed?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed. I think it's perfectly
consistent. The President made clear that it is not necessary, but it
is desirable. And, therefore, the President and our allies are
presenting it to the United Nations, and now it's up to the United
Nations, and we'll see what path they take. But it is not necessary,
from a legal point of view, for the United States, but the President
views it as important and helpful, and therefore he is proceeding.

Q A reaction to two stories, if I could. One, this just
occurred, so if you haven't heard about it, I understand. The arrest
of three Kuwaitis for plotting a terrorist activity on U.S. forces.
Have you heard about that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I just saw the top line on the wire immediately
prior to coming out here, so I have no substantive details.

MR. FLEISCHER: We continue to make good progress in the talks with
Turkey. Our plea is with the actions taken by the Turkish government
to date. There are still some additional "t"s to be crossed and "i"s
to be dotted, but nevertheless, this is a very serious matter and the
democratic country of Turkey has taken it seriously, has responded
seriously, has listened carefully, and we're working together. And
that's where it stands for now. And we, of course, look forward to a
vote in the Turkish Parliament, as well.

Q The British Foreign Minister, Mr. Straw, has said that
they're going to be allowing a period of up to two weeks, maybe a
little more, before asking for a decision on the resolution which the
U.S. and UK are introducing today. We've never heard a time line from
you. Does that sound right?

MR. FLEISCHER: The time line for the President is, having said
that the resolution will be introduced today in New York at the United
Nations, the President expects it to be voted on in short order. And
it's impossible --

Q So two weeks, or a little more?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's impossible to specify an exact date.
I think it's important to be respectful to the United Nations process
and to allow the members of the Security Council, who have not yet seen
the document, to see the document, to see the resolution, and then to
give diplomacy its chance. I can't predict precisely how many days
that will be, but it won't be many.

Q Do you stand by your answer from this morning?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, no changes. But I'm not going to be more
precise than that.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the most notable thing in the memo is a
discussion of increasing the number of inspectors, which underscores
the point that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating, that Saddam Hussein
is not disarming. If Saddam Hussein was disarming, you could actually
have fewer inspectors in Iraq. The fact that people think that -- some
people think they need to have more inspectors there underscores the
American position that Saddam Hussein is not complying and not
cooperating.

You will have later today the text of the resolution the United
States is offering. You'll be able to make all apt comparisons.

Q The French, though, don't seem to be attempting to underscore
the U.S. position -- one must observe.

MR. FLEISCHER: This is why there are 15 members on the Security
Council. And the President looks forward to talking with all of them.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think this falls right back into the
category of subjects that we will not agree on, you and me, or you and
the President -- and you and most Americans, frankly. The fact of the
matter is that --

Q Maybe it doesn't matter whether all the world is against
this?

MR. FLEISCHER: If your perception is -- if your reporting
indicates to you all the world is against this, then I don't think
you've lent too much reporting to it.

Q Your polls --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made clear that the reason we are
on the verge of war is because Saddam Hussein has failed to disarm.
The United Nations speaking for the world called on Saddam Hussein to
disarm -- immediately, finally, final chance. So I think the questions
are best addressed to Saddam Hussein --

Q Are you going to make all the countries --

MR. FLEISCHER: -- why has he brought the world to the verge of
war.

Q -- in defiance of U.N. resolutions to disarm?

MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations Security Council will shortly
have a resolution before it which spells out what actions the United
States and our allies think are appropriate to enforce Resolution
1441. We'll see what the Security Council says.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a woeful mischaracterization of the
situation on the ground in Turkey, which, after all, is a neighboring
state to Iraq. It is not a voting member of the United Nations --

Q They don't want to attack.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- it is not a voting member of the United Nations
Security Council, but as a country on the front line, that as 1991
proved, would suffer economic damage as a result of any hostilities.

Q But the people are against it.

MR. FLEISCHER: Relations between the government and Turkey and the
government in the United States are democracy to democracy, and the
Turkish democracy will have its chance, per Turkish laws, to speak.
We'll hear what Turkey says.

Q The U.N. weapons inspectors have determined that Iraq has
this missile which exceeds limits that it agreed to, or were imposed on
it by the U.N. Hans Blix has said it should be destroyed. If Iraq
destroys those missiles, why isn't that concrete progress toward
disarmament?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we expect that Saddam Hussein
will destroy those missiles. The United Nations Security Council has
called on it to do so, and unless he engages in further defiance, we
expect that he will. But, number two, as the President said over the
weekend, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. And the reason for
that is when a criminal holds a gun to your head and takes one bullet
out of the chamber, you still have to worry about all the rest of the
bullets in the chamber, because they can kill you, too.

And the fact is, with Saddam Hussein, he still has not shown the
world that he has disarmed from the VX, the nerve agents, the botulin,
the anthrax, all of which the United Nations found that he had in his
possession in the late 1990s, which he has yet to account for. That's
the fear about what's in the rest of the gun, in the other chamber --
in the chamber in the gun.

Q So there's no way that Iraq can do anything, really, to avoid
war? Because if they begin to dismantle their weapons, the President
still believes that they've got other bullets in the chamber and is --

MR. FLEISCHER: Under Security Council Resolution 1441, which was
passed in November last year, Iraq had an obligation to immediately and
fully disarm from all the weapons that were prohibited -- and I just
cited several of them. So if Iraq were to take one missile out of the
chamber that they left in the chamber -- VX, sarin, botulin, anthrax --
the world still has a lot to worry about.

Q I understand. And you won't wait to see whether the French
proposal or any other proposal could get them to take those bullets out
of the chamber -- you aren't willing to take "yes" for an answer here
on the missiles and anything else?

MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that the resolution passed in
November and called for full and immediate compliance, "yes" has not
been a word that anybody has heard out of Iraq.

Q Can I ask one question on Turkey? Has the United States
agreed to the Turkish request to send, in the event of war, tens of
thousands of Turkish troops to occupy Kurdish areas in the north of
Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: The position of the United States is unequivocal,
that the territorial integrity of Iraq should be honored.

Q That's not what I asked.

MR. FLEISCHER: The territorial integrity --

Q Will there be Turkish troops in northern Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: As for the complete agreement in terms of the
loans, et cetera, and the financial compensation to assist Turkey
because of the economic consequences of hostilities, I think you can
anticipate that all information will be shared once an agreement is
finalized.

Q So is that a "yes" or a "no" that we have or have not agreed
to Turkish troops in northern Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: You will hear once the agreement is finalized in
its entirety.

MR. FLEISCHER: The situation in Colombia has been a situation of a
vexing nature as a result of FARC's involvement in narcotics. And per
authorization from the United States Congress, the United States is
engaged in a counter-narcotic and counter-terrorist effort in
Colombia. And that is the purpose of having American military in
Colombia, to assist the government of Colombia and President Uribe's
new government in its efforts to fight the FARC, which has inflicted
huge damage on the people of Colombia. And that's why this is a
congressionally authorized action, and we are pleased to stand shoulder
to shoulder with the people of Colombia in this regard

Q So they'll now be engaged in combat missions against the
FARC?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. I said, the United States
is down there in a position of providing assistance to the government
of Colombia, which Colombia is involved in the combat against the
FARC. We are there to provide assistance in counter-narcotics and
counter-terrorism efforts.

Q Ari, you've repeatedly talked about why it's important that
Saddam Hussein follow exactly what the Security Council has mandated in
the 17 resolutions. Should you be defeated in the Security Council on
this new resolution that you're introducing today, would the President
consider it to be a violation of the Security Council's will to go
forward with a military action in any case?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has always made clear that he
hopes the Security Council will enforce its resolutions to disarm
Saddam Hussein. But if they do not, the coalition of the willing will
do so.

Q That's slightly different than my question. That would be
extant if you were just dealing with the 17 resolutions that have been
passed so far. But if the Security Council specifically declines to
give an authorization for military action in this resolution, wouldn't
taking military action then be in defiance of the Security Council's
will about how it would go about enforcing its past resolutions?

MR. FLEISCHER: Given what the President has said, if the Security
Council does not act, the coalition will be assembled. And I think in
that case, the question is similar to the previous situation, which was
not far removed from this, which is where the Security Council did not
act, given the threat of Slobodan Milosevic and the ethnic cleansing in
Serbia and Bosnia -- or Kosovo, and the international community
responded because the Security Council would not.

Q If it looked like the Security Council would not pass this,
would the United States then withdraw it, rather than bring it to a
formal vote?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think we'll just let events take place. And the
President, as he said over the weekend, is confident that once the
Security Council members see the resolution and then the matter
proceeds to a vote, it will be passed.

Q France has basically said that its veto is not necessarily
needed, because there are so many other countries opposed. I know that
Tony Blair spoke with President Putin. What has been high-level
contact, either with the President or others, with Russia around the
issue of the resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, today the President had a meeting
with an important staff member of the President of Russia, and so there
was conversation today about it, as well. And I think you can
anticipate that over the next little while you're going to see a whole
series, as you have been seeing, of diplomatic phone calls and
meetings. And those will involve the President, it will involve the
Secretary of State, it will involve others in the administration, as
well. And Russia, of course, is a member of the Security Council and
we always look forward to talking to Russia.

Q Can you tell us who the staff member was?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have the title, I don't have the name. We'll be
happy to post it, and if I had the name, I couldn't pronounce it. But
it's the head of the administration of the President of Russia. I
believe it's the equivalent of the Chief of Staff.

Q Ari, given the fact that the French are going to introduce at
least a memo, maybe even another resolution saying that inspectors need
more time, what -- besides saying that the U.N. will be irrelevant if
they don't act now -- what is going to be the U.S. strategy over the
next two weeks to try to get this passed, and at least try to avoid a
veto?

MR. FLEISCHER: To those who say the inspectors need more time --
need more time to do what? To get run around? They haven't had any
cooperation from Iraq to date. And so when the resolution that was
passed unanimously last year stated that Iraq's compliance should be
full and immediate, it didn't say it should be delayed and stretched
out. It didn't say it should be denied. It didn't say that it should
be gamed. It said full and immediate. The question is: will Saddam
Hussein disarm? He has shown the world that he has not and will not.

And that will be the case that the administration makes. The
administration, in the course of phone calls and meetings and through
diplomacy, will work with each of the 15 members of the Security
Council about the language that is being offered today. We'll hear
their thoughts and concerns about the language, and we will work
together, and then see what ultimately happens when it's put to a
vote.

Q The next obvious question, which is, the resolution, or the
language of the resolution that you are offering today is obviously
negotiable -- based on what the French and the Russians and the Chinese
say?

MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly. The United Nations Security Council is
not a rubber stamp. The United Nations Security Council is an
important deliberative organization. And the President has been
successful, I remind you, in going to the Security Council before.

Q Ari, the President has said before about Iraq -- to
paraphrase, that if he waited -- if the United States waited until Iraq
developed and possessed a nuclear weapon, that the will to confront
Iraq might be even less. Does the fact that North Korea is known to
possess nuclear weapons play a factor in the very different approach
we're taking toward Pyongyang?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President has made abundantly clear,
there are different ways of dealing with different regions of the
world. The ultimate outcome is always to enforce the proliferation
regimes of the international community so that would-be threats do not
come into possession of weapons of mass destruction. In the case of
Korea, the President's approach is based on a multilateral approach, is
based on diplomacy, because he thinks it will be the most effective.

In the case of Iraq, the President has very little hope left that
Saddam Hussein will respond to diplomacy. And that's why it requires
different solutions in different parts of the world. But, certainly, I
don't think anybody would like to look at the situation in North Korea
and Iraq and come to the conclusion that if North Korea has nuclear
weapons than it's okay for Iraq to have nuclear weapons. That would be
a very wrong conclusion to reach.

Q On the second resolution, though we don't know the specific
language yet, it does seem clear that the allies who are proposing it
will not seek specific, explicit authorization for the use of force.
Why not?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you have to wait for the language to be
offered. I'm not going to venture into guesses about what the language
may or may not be.

Q Well, we know that it's not going to ask for authorization
force. Can you respond to that at all?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm going to wait for the language to be
introduced, and then at that time I think we'll be in a position to
answer most of your questions.

Q Can you characterize the thrust of this resolution in any
way?

MR. FLEISCHER: The resolution that will be offered at the United
Nations today is direct and to the point, and it makes certain that
Resolution 1441 is implemented.

Q That sweet -- that short and sweet?

MR. FLEISCHER: Short and sweet.

Q Ari, a lot of the diplomatic efforts by the President we've
seen of late are sort of preaching to the choir. He's almost always
shown with someone who supports him.

MR. FLEISCHER: I differ with that entirely. I mean, the President
yesterday -- or Saturday, as you know, spoke to President Fox of
Mexico, he spoke to President Lagos of Chile, the President spoke to
President Chirac of France.

Q But the photos and the visits are almost always with someone
who agrees with him. What about any meetings face to face with some of
the more difficult people to win over in the U.N.? And what's the
status of things with Chirac? Will we see any conversations there, or
is the President given up on --

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me make a couple points. Number one, when you
look at how many leaders, particularly in Europe, line up on the side
of the United Nations, there are not a whole lot of leaders to meet
with who don't.

So the simple arithmetic of it means there are many, many more
people to meet with who agree with the President than people who oppose
him. Now, the President will of course work very closely with the
members of the Security Council on the terms of the introduction of a
resolution who agree with the United States. You begin with your
sponsors, and then you move forward from there to build support beyond
the sponsorship.

And you will see that. You will see in diplomacy. You will see
with -- Secretary Powell, for example, was just in China, and he met
with Chinese officials. And so you'll continue to see it through a
number of meetings with a number of ways, with nations around the
world. But I don't think that's an accurate characterization.

Q What about the press -- what can we -- he's making these
phone calls, but will he invite Fox to the White House? Will he do any
face to faces, and has he since two weeks ago or 10 days ago when he
talked to Chirac, has he spoken with --

MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you filled in, as we always do, about
the phone calls the President makes and the conversations that he has.
And I think you can anticipate that he'll use his time wisely. He will
call and make -- enter into contact with whoever it's deemed that it's
most fruitful, as the diplomacy is pursued, to win the support of the
Security Council.

Q According to reports out of Moscow, Saddam's old friend,
Yevgeny Primakov is back in Baghdad today for a chat with Saddam. What
do we think he's up to? Do you think Primakov is playing a useful role
here? We didn't think much of his role in '91, of course. Is this a
reprise of that, or have things shifted?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not gotten any reports out of the Primakov
meeting. Let me see if there is anything I can get for you on it.

Q Ari, two questions. You have stated from this podium that
France is a good ally of the United States and will continue to be a
good ally.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q You've answered the first. Next question, on the Colombia
issue, there's an additional 150 troops, I think, being sent to
Colombia.

MR. FLEISCHER: Not correct --

Q The President doesn't like people speaking -- you know that.
(Laughter.) Let me ask you this, will the U.S. troops there engage in
combat in assisting President Uribe, especially now that three
Americans are being held hostage? The FARC has accepted that they're
--

MR. FLEISCHER: There was an erroneous report that said 150 United
States Special Forces have been sent to Colombia. That is not an
accurate report.

Q Not accurate on the number or --

MR. FLEISCHER: In both. In both the nature of the forces and the
number. It is a far, far smaller number, and it's a varied type of DOD
officials to go down there to assist Colombia in ongoing
counter-narcotics, counter-terrorist effort. It coincides with the
taking of the hostages by the FARC. DOD can give you any information
about rules of engagement, but it's a different situation from the one
you're asking about.

Q Ari, can I take another crack at the box score questions
about the U.N. Security Council? What degree of confidence does the
White House have going into this, as it prepares to table its latest
resolution? What degree of confidence that you are passed a veto at
this point?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has said that he is confident
that the requisite number of the Security Council will vote for it. Of
course, it passes with nine votes and no veto. I'm not in a position
to give you an answer from other nations about how they will use their
veto.

Clearly, the United States hopes that nobody will veto it. We see
no need for it to be vetoed. We think that a veto would mean that Iraq
will get to continue to build up its arms and get away with it. But
I'm not in a position to answer you authoritatively on what the outcome
will be. As far as a veto, clearly, the President hopes that would not
be the case. But we are confident we will have the requisite number of
votes to pass, unless there is a veto.

Q And on a separate but related subject, the Palestinians have
indicated that they will engage in -- for lack of a better term --
cease-fire, should a war with Iraq occur. Is this something that
potentially puts the Palestinians back on a track towards the road
map?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the interesting side notes to the many
discussions the President has been having with world leaders about Iraq
is the President always brings into the conversation the importance of
making progress on Israeli-Palestinian issues. It remains a vital,
central goal of the United States of President Bush, and there
continues to be a serious effort underway for reform of the Palestinian
institutions. The President still views that, just as he said in his
June 24th Rose Garden speech, as the core of the way to move forward.

At the same time, the President does believe that all nations --
including Israel and the Arab nations in the area -- have
responsibilities to contribute to the peace process. It's a lengthy
process. If it was an easy or short process, it would have been done
many, many years ago. But nevertheless it does remain a key part of
all the discussions that the President has.

Q Are you saying then that a cease-fire on the part of the
Palestinians is, in fact, a contribution towards the war effort?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President views any diminishment of
violence in the Middle East as a contribution to the peace and security
of the people in the region. And the best way to move forward with the
President's vision of having a state of Palestine and a state of Israel
living side by side and in security is through a diminishment of
violence. It is through an end to violence.

Q If you -- as far as war is concerned with Iraq -- if you can
go inside the President's mind, he must be really tremendous -- under
pressure from every side and also the most tense person in the world
today. When he sees all these demonstrations, like millions against
him -- and thousands in favoring with him, how does he feel about
this? And where can he go from here?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's an interesting question. But I think as
many of the people -- particularly reporters who knew the President
from the campaign and who have been up close with him know, there is
something about President Bush that when he makes up his mind about
something, he demonstrates leadership and acts on principle and is very
comfortable with the actions and decisions that he makes. And that's
the zone that the President is in.

The President believes very strongly in the importance of
consultation and working with our allies. And he believes very
strongly in the need to lead. And that's what he's doing. And when he
looks at what has happened in Iraq, when he looks at the threat Saddam
Hussein can present to the American people -- particularly after
September 11th -- the President is certain that what he is doing and
the path that he has chosen to protect the peace. And that's his
approach.

Q -- as far as the U.N. Security Council is concerned, Mr.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, he has written a commentary or
article which -- carried. And he said that since France is not
cooperating as far as the world affairs are concerned in the Security
Council, France should be put off the Security Council, and -- the
world's largest democracy -- India -- to be the member of the --
Security Council in the United Nations. So

how does the United States will --

MR. FLEISCHER: I remember that column. I have not heard the
President weigh-in on that topic. What I know the President believes
-- and this is what I was indicating earlier in response to Jacobo's
questions -- is in the President's conversation with President Chirac,
it's important, despite the difficulties that have been made and the
relations between the United States and France on this issue to always
remember that France is on our side. There is a difference between
France and the United States on the approach to the use of force.

But the President knows the that nations of Western Europe and the
nations of Eastern Europe are allied nations with the United States.
We have shared values, we have shared approaches. We may have
differences with a minority of a minority of nations on a continent,
but the President still believes that it's important for us to respect
those countries.

Q Ari, with respect to the timing of the Security Council vote
coming in a couple weeks or something like that, that seems to -- at
least the British have told us that they'd like to leave some room for
additional reports from the U.N. inspectors. You were just saying that
Saddam has not and will not disarm, so what's the point of additional
reports from the inspectors?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we look forward to the additional
reports that will come in from Mr. Blix and Dr. Baradei. They have
been given a assignment the United States supports through the United
Nations Security Council, and we want to hear what they have to say.

Q If you've decided that Saddam has not and will not disarm, do
we even need any more inspectors?

MR. FLEISCHER: We have seen no evidence from Saddam Hussein that
he has or that he will. And the inspectors are there to carry out
their mission as we asked them to do so.

Q I mean, what's the point, if we decided that there's no
further chance that Saddam is going to disarm?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is why the President said almost a month ago
that time is running out. This is a matter of weeks, not months. The
signal the President was sending is this cannot go on indefinitely,
given the fact that Saddam Hussein has not shown that he will comply,
has not shown that he will disarm. But there remains an important
process underway that the Security Council set in motion with the
resolution that the United States supports. But that was not an
indefinite process.

Q Ari, the U.S. is sending around 1,700 soldiers and Marines to
help the Philippines -- the Abu Sayyef. With a possible war on Iraq
very close, are we spreading ourselves too thin by getting involved as
well in the world?

MR. FLEISCHER: Emphatically, no. The United States military,
given its size, given its abilities, given its mobility, is very well
situated to be able to handle such instances. In fact, the President
views this as all part of a common struggle against terrorism. And the
government of the Philippines has been very strong in fighting the Abu
Sayyef group and the terrorism that they face and the Philippine people
face. And of course, hostages have been taken who were Americans and
there was one killing of an American as a result of Abu Sayyef.

And so the President is pleased to respond to a request from the
government of the Philippines. This will be a Philippine-led
operation, and the United States stands ready and able to assist in
this mission.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any such motion moving forward, so
I don't think there's anything to worry about.

Q Well, let me ask another question. Did he or anyone in the
White House work, perhaps through the President's brother, to quash
this resolution in order to prevent an exodus of Republicans?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not deeply involved in the processes by which
the Governors Association moves the resolutions or doesn't move the
resolutions.

Q To follow mi amiga, Sarah, you've got military scenarios and
potential flashpoints in many parts of the world, including the ongoing
war against terrorism. At what point does President Bush consider this
a third world war, as some have described it?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President views this as the war against
terrorism. And the President views this, particularly after September
11th, as a United States of America for whom everything changed. And
the President is not content to sit back and take a chance that
dictators, terrorists, people who have killed their own people, people
who have gassed their own people, people who have shown a willingness
to link up with others would bring harm to our country once again. The
President does not want to undergo another September 11th for our
country. And it is a worry. And so, therefore, the President views
this as an ongoing war against terrorism. I have not heard him use any
other language than that.

Q Ari, when 1441 was introduced, it took about seven weeks, I
think, of diplomacy, language was negotiated word by word. The
President said today, put the stress on we're going to work with the
Security Council for days this time. I'm wondering if in his mind
there is sort of a drop-dead date for getting this thing done, and if
this time around the language is firm, this is what we want an up or
down vote on and we're not going to be negotiating about language?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, this resolution is far, far
shorter than Resolution 1441. It contains far fewer words, far fewer
pages. So there is less to talk about. This is very straight and to
the point. And that's one reason why the President indicates that
there need not be interminable delays in bringing this to a vote. But
the President has said that the time is coming, and the President is
confident that the timetable that the United Nations will act on will
also be reflective of not letting this stretch out and drag out
interminably. The President thinks it will be voted on in short
order.

Q You mean the language, this is the resolution he wants voted
on?

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, the United States is a sponsor of it; it's
the resolution that we want voted on.

Q Ari, the President told the governors this morning he was
disappointed the Congress didn't approve $3.5 billion for homeland
security measures. But with the looming war, what is the President
planning on doing to give states the critical funding to improve
homeland security?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we hope that Congress will revisit the
flexibility issue within that funding. Congress voted for the $3.5
billion the President asked for, but then it put strings on $2.2
billion of it. So there's only approximately $1.3 billion that is
actual -- the flexible grants that provide the most assurance for the
states to get the type of equipment that they need to respond to
homeland security and potential terrorism. It would be helpful if
Congress would revisit some these grants to universities and other
things that are earmarked. That was something that was discussed today
in the meeting. That would be the very first, most helpful thing that
could take place.

Q Ari, if there are, indeed, military hostilities with Iraq,
would the President condone the use of the so-called mini-nukes, which
have been authorized for development under recent presidential
directives, in the fight against Saddam Hussein for bunker-busting or
anything like that?

MR. FLEISCHER: In standing with our long time policies, the White
House and the government do not rule anything in, do not rule anything
out. So I don't talk about specific types of munitions.

Q Yes, Ari, one of the most vocal arguments being made by
people who are against the war is that if we start bombing, there are
many innocent civilians, Iraqi civilians will be killed. What's the
response to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the United States military takes
great pride in the fact that they work incredibly hard to make certain
that there are as few civilian casualties as possible. And that is
part of the training of the military, it is part of the technical
expertise of the military. Unfortunately, in war, not everything goes
perfectly, and so nobody can rule anything out.

But one worry is clearly Saddam Hussein's effort to use people
around the world -- to have them come to Baghdad, then to take their
lives as human shields. It is one of the cruelest things a leader can
do, to put people in harm's way. And this is why the Pentagon has gone
out of its way to warn people about Saddam Hussein's efforts to take
innocents and put them in harm's way, and create them as -- put them in
place as human shields. It is illegal, it is against international
procedures. Unfortunately, it is something that Saddam Hussein has
done before.

MR. FLEISCHER: President Bush has asked Secretary Powell to travel
there, as you know. The Secretary is there to honor President-elect
Roh on his inauguration. The United States and the people of South
Korea have long had a very strong relationship. South Korea is a
democracy. The President enjoyed his conversation with President-elect
Roh and looks forward to meeting with him and congratulates him on his
inauguration.

Q Ari, could I follow up on the human shield question? There
are some anti-war demonstrators who have voluntarily offered themselves
up as human shields in Iraq. How does the President feel about the
safety and well being of those people in the event that there is a
war?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President hopes that no one will allow
themselves to be used in such a manner, that this is very, very
serious, and that to put -- for anybody to put themselves or to allow
Saddam Hussein to use them in such a way as human shields is very
worrisome. And the President hopes that nobody will do that to
themselves.

Q He doesn't view their presence as a deterrent?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President views the use of military force as a
last resort, which he hopes can be avoided. But it's a last resort
that if he makes the decision that it's necessary to engage in, he will
do so to protect the people of the United States from attack.

Q Ari, do you have anything to tell us at this point about a
change in the threat level? Is there any consideration of moving back
down a notch?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not been given anything new on it today.

Q One other thing, if I could. Is there some limit on the
number of people who are allowed to go the microphone at the stakeout
position?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's always been a practicality issue. I think
there's always a sensitivity, for example, to having 50 governors stand
in front of one microphone. It might be very dangerous for the
technicians. (Laughter.)